HolidayTheLeek

Trans-Kerbin Airways - Regional Jet Challenge 2: Electric Boogaloo

Recommended Posts

Planning a plane to carry cargo... and it is already in shakedown and improvement. 

;)

Also, this cargo plane uses fuel tanks as engine bodies (I thought that the engines were not long enough, so I'm asking if it's allowed to have those fueled, as they add 1600 Kallons of fuel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NightshineRecorralis said:

Huh, this is back
Think I might dabble in writing reviews again. Should be fun.

@HolidayTheLeek I've send you a request, btw

No problem! I'll add you to the server my dude :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LjV7Ifo.jpg

Introducing the LA-600, Kerbin's newest Medium-capacity, Long-haul Airliner
The LA-600 was designed with one purpose in mind: bringing the world closer together. It combines the long range and capacity of a jumbo jet with the short-field performance of a puddle-jumper, allowing it to make even Kerbin's most remote cities accessible by direct flight - from anywhere in the world. Wherever your future leads you, the LA-600 can take you there.

lEIjI3H.jpg

Download Link: https://kerbalx.com/servo/LA-600SM-Airliner

E2ZZgXY.jpg

Performance Data

Spoiler

Class: Long-haul, Medium Capacity

Seats: 148 economy, 16 business

Cost: $180 mil

Gross Weight: 178 tons

Range: 3800 km

Cruising Speed: 260 m/s

Cruising Altitude: 4,000 m

Burn Rate at Cruise: 1.11 kal/s @260m/s, .94 kal/s @ 230m/s 

Rotation Speed: 70m/s

V1 Abort  Minimum Runway Length: 900m

Flight Manual

Spoiler

Standard Takeoff

Spoiler

1. Engage brakes

2. Set Flaps to Takeoff Mode (AG: RCS)

3. Set throttle to 1/2.

4. Stage to activate engines. Pause 10s for engines to spool

5. Release brakes and begin takeoff roll

6. At V1 (70m/s for gross-weight takeoff), pull back and takeoff at a climb angle of 20 degrees

7. With V3 of 100m/s, retract gear and flaps (AG: Gear, RCS)

8. Climb to cruising altitude at maximum rate of climb for 120m/s

Minimum-length Takeoff

Spoiler

1. Engage brakes

2. Set Flaps to Takeoff Mode (AG: RCS)

3. Set throttle to max

4. Stage to activate engines. 

5. After the plane begins rolling, release brakes and begin takeoff roll

6. Just before V1 (70m/s for gross-weight takeoff), pull back hard and takeoff at a climb angle of 30 degrees

7. With V3 of 100m/s, retract gear and flaps (AG: Gear, RCS)

8. Climb to cruising altitude at maximum rate of climb for 120m/s

Engine-out Operations 

Spoiler

REGAINING CONTROL

1. Upon detecting the engine failure, throttle to 1/2 immediately

2. If SAS is engaged, disengage it

3. Roll hard over against the natural roll, and move to a slight pitch down to maintain speed

4. Trim Yaw + Roll hard to counteract the crafts natural yaw + roll. Do this as quickly as possible while still maintaining attitude

5. Deploy outboard flaps to assist roll moment

6. Increase control authority on ailerons and rudder to full (+23 degrees)

7. Increase throttle to 3/4

8. trim out any instabilities

9. increase throttle to full

FLIGHT WITH ENGINE OUT

 Determine nearest suitable landing site. In almost all cases, rerouting to an airport is desirable over ditching, even if the airport is several hours away. The LA-600 can maintain control and altitude at lower altitudes indefinitely with a single engine, so it has the ability to cover long distances even with a single engine. As such, the LA-600 is compliant with ETDO without water ditching as a primary abort procedure.

 

 

Edited by Servo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Introducing the first long range, long haul aircraft developed and built by Saget Aerospace Industries: The SAI-480 Gigant

WsAJ59A.png

Price:  $750,093,000 (Includes first tank of fuel, shipping, handling, and filled snack carts)

Range: ~3500km while cruising at 5000m and 210 m/s

Capacity: 480 Kerbals in first class luxury arrangements, can be fitted to second class or coach for more passengers

Fuel: 21,560 Gallons of premium aviation fuel

Description: The first iteration of a home-brewed super jumbo jet, the Gigant certainly lives up to it's name. Weighing in at over 310 tons and with a wingspan exceeding 56 meters, this aircraft is certain to draw attention on and off the ground. Boasting a unique double-deck seating arrangement, this aircraft offers extreme versatility in the variety of seating options, with the lower deck configurable between first, second and third class. SAI is also currently looking into replacing the bottom deck entirely with a large cargo hold for cargo capacity, or fuel tanks for extended range. While the craft may seem large and ungainly at first, the aircraft handles surprisingly well. With a V(r) speed of only 60 m/s and a take off speed of 90 m/s, this aircraft can operate at a large range of airports. 

The aircraft has also been safety tested to the extreme by our test pilots, with air frames surviving in excess of 350 meters per second and maneuvers as extreme as 5G. The aircraft also ditches well in the ocean, with the belly mounted fuel tanks serving as improvised flotation devices.

This craft has been designed with pilot and passenger comfort in mind. Underneath the large main landing gear is a smaller auxiliary landing gear capable of steering the airplane, and while the craft can take off using that landing gear, it is highly recommended that the main gear be used. The roll authority has also been limited, with an option to disengage the hydraulic limiters and use them to their full extent.

Overall, the engineers and test pilots at SAI are incredibly pleased with this aircraft, and we hope that our customers are pleased with it as well.

Download Link: https://kerbalx.com/Bob_Saget54/SAI-Gigant

 

Edited by Bob_Saget54
Forgot download link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Test Pilot Review: @Servo’s Skytrain LA-600

dnUnMs6.jpgWysntee.jpg

(Top: LA-600 overflying the KSC; Bottom: LA-600 cruising at altitude)

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:179,833,000

  • Fuel: 16,420 kallons

  • Cruising speed: 260m/s

  • Cruising altitude: 4000m

  • Fuel burn rate: 0.975 kal/s @ 260m/s; 0.84 kal/s @ 230m/s

  • Passengers Carried: 156

  • Range:  4000km+

 

Review Notes:

What’s this? A new jet waiting to be taken up for a spin? Habu Industries engineers were pretty excited to see how our shiny new toy would handle, but coming from supersonic and hypersonic transports, they warned the pilots to keep their expectations low.

Initial impressions of the LA-600 were positive overall. The attention to detail from a new manufacturer was very nice, though it seems that their marketing team and the engineers on the floor didn’t quite get everything proofread. Unless this is a yet to be released variant, we can confidently say that no, the LA-600 does not seat 164 as advertised, but rather a total of 156 - 140 in the 35 economy cabins and 16 in the two business class cabins right behind the cockpit… or what appeared to be one. Our pilots were understandably disappointed when they realized that the aircraft did not have room for them, but their soured mood disappeared once they were allowed to play with the remote controls.

The LA-600 is outfitted with a simple tricycle landing gear configuration with a slight nose-down attitude on the ground. The complex wings and vertical stabilizer structures are juxtaposed with a simple horizontal stabilizer design and curious choices for the winglets. An extensive flap system adorns the trailing edge of the wing, but we were disappointed to see a lack of slats to accompany them given the amount of effort put into the design. A motley of nice-to-haves are present on this aircraft, such as flap supports and landing lights, as well as a cavernous cargo hold beneath the floor of the main deck. The design is pleasing and simple, almost too simple, but we can’t dock points for that.

Comfort on paper should be average, according to the aforementioned cabin layout, however the LA-600 adopts an odd strategy of cramming seats in at an odd angle, and what would be an excellent business class cabin placement is marred by the intrusion of multiple economy cabins. For the brave souls who did volunteer to hop aboard for the test flights they found that, apart from the cramped economy seats and less than average business class seat pitch, the aircraft itself was pleasant to ride in. The low slung engine mounted to an already low wing meant that the distance between the twin Goliath turbofan engines and the main cabin is quite large and sounds are tolerable.

The LA-600 left a positive impression on our passengers, but what about the pilots? We must question the use of remote control or other unmanned technology on a passenger aircraft, but unfortunately we cannot test how effective the implementation is on this particular model. Our pilots who took command of the LA-600 found it to be a well-behaved airliner, once the supplied manual was thrown out the window and thoroughly demolished in a garbage fire. The instruction for flying this aircraft are in poor taste, and the first test flight nearly ended in disaster as the LA-600 overran the runway on takeoff and nearly went down in the drink had full throttle not been applied. Later simulations revealed that takeoff should not be attempted at lower power and that the flaps were more of a hindrance than a help in nearly all situations given that it reduces pitch control drastically. Following the instructions given we determined that the minimum unstick speed was 83m/s, much higher than the 70m/s listed. Once we allowed our pilots to use their own judgement, ignoring the flaps and applying full power during takeoff roll, the aircraft leapt into the air at 70m/s while only using 600m of runway, a pleasant surprise and frankly astounding performance.

Our pilots also questioned the manual’s description of climb. They found that limiting the climb angle to 15 degrees presented a far smaller risk of stalling and loss of control should an engine-out event occur during this phase of the flight. With all systems operational the LA-600 is expected to reach cruise at under 5 minutes after takeoff. Most of that time was spent letting the aircraft get up to speed, and both pilots and engineers agreed that it was uncomfortable for them to redline the turbofans for the majority of the flight at the suggested 260m/s cruising speed. The given range estimate was quite accurate, if slightly low. The LA-600 overdelivered at a maximum usable range of 4100km thanks to its large amount of fuel. In fact, we discovered that the fuel tanks in the wings appeared to utilize some kind of dark magic not yet understood by modern physics, as they each contained approximately twice as much fuel as previously thought possible. At least that means stop-overs should be a thing of the past.

Landing the LA-600 was a breeze… for the most part. In a typical landing scenario our pilots found nothing to complain about, but only wished that spoilers and thrust reversers were a standard feature on all large jets. This is made even worse by the fact that thrust reversers come standard on these engines, but have simply been disabled. Similarly, emergency landings are quite standard, provided you can extend the landing gear. Through our advanced simulation in “Human Space Program” we discovered that any strike to the engines would lead to a catastrophic hull-loss, which is a massive risk as they are mounted low to the ground. Water ditchings were satisfactory but could use improvement as pitch control was almost nonexistent at speeds low enough to conduct a safe water landing. Our pilots determined that even with the fuel tanks nearly drained the minimum safe ditching speed was 75m/s. This is dangerously high to the point that a misjudged water landing will result in a hull-loss. 

Our pilots were also surprised to find 4 thrust levers on their consoles as outwardly the aircraft only appeared to have 2. Through careful disassembly of the starboard engine the engineers were left with enough parts for two engines, and couldn’t put it back together in the place of one. We think there’s more spooky magic at play here. Thankfully this did only take place once all our other testing had already transpired. 

This aircraft is very complex - at over 300 parts to be serviced, we would expect this aircraft to put a dent in any airline’s wallet. The physics defying engines and fuel tanks will need complete replacement rather than simple maintenance should anything go wrong, and the highly complicated wing and stabilizers are needlessly complex for their purpose. While this thing may be a looker, it certainly isn’t optimal to actual fly. We cannot in good faith recommend this aircraft to any prospective airlines, not for its list price of :funds:179,833,000 since it’s difficult to service, inefficient, and simply does not command a price premium considering the passenger comfort. Should an upcoming revision fix these issues then we’d be glad to take a look at the improvements. However, for the time being, the LA-600 is more suited for a museum than an active fleet.

Edited by NightshineRecorralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habu Industries proudly presents: The Saturn SST

zRVAwlm.jpg

https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Saturn

Marketing Blah Blah Blah:

Habu Industries offers the forefront in SST technology: Want a long haul, mid capacity, high speed transport with STOL characteristics? The Saturn seats 48 business class and 64 economy class and will transport passengers that have a need for speed with unparalleled speed and efficiency anywhere across the world. With enough range to circumnavigate Kerbin, any time-sensitive route can be conquered with speed and comfort. The Saturn is the successor to the critically acclaimed Jupiter, now with improved comfort and engine placement! Perfect for getting to your destination swiftly and with style, the Saturn is 50%* safer than its predecessor in engine failure situations and on average has 30%** less perceived noise in the main cabin. This is the ultimate long-thin airliner, and all this can be yours for the low low price of :funds:107,642,000!

Pilot notes and flight characteristics:

  • Cruise: 21km @ 1200m/s
  • Fuel consumption: <0.64 kal/s in supercruise
  • Range: 4000km+
  • Hold brakes until rolling at 1m/s and rotate at 65m/s - takeoff roll should only take up to 600m in ideal situations.
  • Retract body flaps as soon as is convenient on takeoff and extend them when landing to increase lift and slow down faster. Landing should take place around 55m/s with AoA of 0 degrees.
  • Climb to altitude holding 20 degree pitch - start levelling off before 17km or you will likely overshoot.
  • If you reach cruise with less than 2500 units of fuel left you did a poor ascent. Git gud.
  • Pitch and yaw sensitivity should not have to be altered. Change roll values to suit your flying but this thing does not need much roll control.

SSTs can be hard to fly, so reach out if you need help!

*made up number

**very made up number

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft Evaluation by TKA of @keptin and JORG Industries Duck:

8EBiuQj.png

Aerial photograph of the JORG Duck going transonic on the first lest flight

Figures as tested:

  • Price: :funds:34,332,000
  • Fuel:  3,300 units
  • Cruising Speed:  1160m/s
  • Cruising Altitude:  20,000m
  • Fuel Burn Rate:  1.18
  • Range:  3244km

Flight notes (Please note these are take directly off of the test pilot's note sheet.):

  • Hard to get into the cockpit b/c its so high off the ground. Needed a rope ladder which was hard to climb with my bags
  • No user manual other than a few notes scribbled on the cockpit wall. Never mind I found it...
  • Good early engine performance!
  • Handles well at low speeds. Rotated really easy with plenty of lift
  • Oh wait I found the manual...
  • 20,000m!?!!?? That must be a mistake thats so high
  • Climbing is easy and relaxing
  • Approaching 15k meters. don't see how we could get higher than this...
  • WOW! 20,000m is possible
  • Going supersonic is very easy!
  • Note to self: pack food for next test flight
  • The high altitude is making it hard to manuver maneuver
  • High altitude maneuvering is difficult
  • Slowing for a landing now
  • Landing is super easy! I LOVE whoever designed these wings! 

Our Verdict:

This aircraft is a phenomenal machine in many ways. First, the aircraft performs very well at most altitudes and speeds. The only downside is the cursing altitude handling which is poor due to the high altitude. The aircraft also has a very short takeoff and landing for a supersonic transport which allows for a ton of mission flexibility. Second, The aircraft is relatively simple and inexpensive for a supersonic jet. The only downside to this is the very complicated turbo-ramjet engines which power the aircraft. These are pretty maintenance intensive and require a long grounded time. The major drawback to this aircraft, however is the limited practical use of it. Having a small cargo aircraft go this fast is really not a common requirement for airlines as most shipments can be done much cheaper in bulk or on slower aircraft. This means the aircraft would most likely only be able to carry high priority, time sensitive cargo such as organs, medical patients, or time bombs.

In final conclusion, while the aircraft is a very good, the implementation of it might be difficult as it can only be used in very specific circumstances. 

The airline would like to place an order with JORG industries for 4 of these aircraft to serve as high priority cargo transports.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: @AVeryNiceSpacePenguin's Doug-Glass SBD Dauntless

(NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT AEROPLANES LIKE THIS. THIS WAS ONLY REVIEWED BECAUSE I KNOW THIS GUY ON DISCORD. FUTURE AIRCRAFT THAT DO NOT FIT INTO THE CHALLENGE IN ANY WAY WILL BE IGNORED IN FUTURE)

20200526231908_1.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:752,146,000
  • Fuel: None
  • Cruising speed: 45m/s
  • Cruising altitude: It doesn't climb well - our pilots got bored
  • Fuel burn rate: 50 units of LF, 400 EC (we're not sure if the fuel actually gets used)
  • Passengers Carried: 2
  • Range: Unknown

Review Notes:

We're not sure why we got sent a war bird... we think it got sent to the wrong address?

Shouldn't this thing be in a museum?

Surely, this must be a mistake... though, the information we got given makes it very clear Doug-Glass intended this thing to be used as an airliner... somehow. 

First of all, the plane has an absolutely monstrous cost of :funds:752,146,000 which means, it would never ever be able to make a profit. Secondly, the passengers are in an (understandably) cramped 'cabin'  and the passenger in the rear isn't even enclosed under a roof. The aircraft has an extremely dated design with a taildragger landing gear configuration and a 9 cylinder radial engine and for some reason it's coated in gold. We're not even sure if we can get parts for this plane anymore, making maintenance very difficult. The aircraft also came with a lot of action groups which, were fairly confusing and poorly laid out. How the aircraft was powered was also a mystery, having a radial engine but being electrically powered.

None of our test pilots had flown an actual warbird before so they were excited to get into this thing.

The taildragger layout meant that the pilot had to stick their head out of the cockpit to taxi - this was deemed unacceptable for any modern aircraft (we're aware it isn't). The solid gold coating the aircraft weighed down the aircraft considerably and negatively impacted control in all areas. The engine struggled to lift the aircraft off the ground - let alone perform well in flight. We were able to get the aircraft to roughly 50m/s, though it sat at 45m/s for most of the flight - very close to its own stall speed and the stalling speeds of most other submissions. 

The machine gun in the rear posed a significant safety risk as passengers could shoot off the plane's own tail with relatively ease, - we appreciated the free bottle of whiskey in the passenger compartment, though. 

The aircraft glided like a solid gold brick (probably because it literally is one) and with the SBD only having a singular engine from like eighty years ago, reliability and safety regarding ditching the aircraft did not meet the airline's expectations.

Actually, the aircraft wasn't fit to be an airliner at all... why is it here?

The Verdict:

We're not buying it.

The aircraft belongs in a museum... not an airline..

Edited by HolidayTheLeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: @Bob_Saget54's SAI-480 Gigant

eWNgIVjl.jpgO3Zp8RFl.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:750,093,000 configured from the factory; :funds:749,973,000 as tested
  • Fuel: 21,560 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 210m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 5000m
  • Fuel burn rate: 1.135kal/s
  • Passengers Carried: 480/0/0 as tested
  • Range:  3700+km

Review Notes:

New day, new plane that needs reviewing. This time there was no unveiling ceremony as the plane we were supposed to review was simply to large for any cloth to cover! The SAI-480 Gigant is the largest aircraft we have had the pleasure of reviewing, and going into all the testing we had high hopes for the simplistic double decker behemoth Saget Aerospace Industries brought to us. The Gigant was an interesting blend of sharp angles and sweeping curves, with wings and stabilizers that looked like they were stolen from a high speed bomber and a passenger deck torn out of an oceanliner. Indeed, it even has the struts to go along, emphasizing the mish-mash style.

The initial walkaround and quick glance at the pilot’s handbook revealed the nature of the dual nose gear - one of which was meant for steering and the other for… resting on? It was an odd configuration that left our pilots scratching their heads and our engineers snickering. We certainly hoped the rest of the plane wasn’t built as haphazardly. The twin deck structure appeared to be completely standard first class cabins, and despite how long the Gigant was felt rock solid even with everyone piled into both decks and jumping at the same time.

Instead of utilizing a wet wing like many other jumbos, the Gigant has gone with a completely centralized fuel tank right below and extending the full length of the lower deck. The staggering fuel capacity is accompanied by six Goliath turbofan engines to give this massive airliner the power and range it’s advertised to have, of which we were eager to verify once we got it out of the hangar. All we had to do beforehand was drain the monopropellant from the cockpit. Did SAI steal this from a space program?

Immediately our pilots had something to say during ground testing: There was no point in having two separate nose gear the way SAI designed it. While the larger of the two kept the nose high, apart from that it was not useful in any way, shape, or form. Our pilots unanimously agreed that they would prefer to have a single steerable gear rather than changing between the two constantly. Apart from that, the Gigant handled well on the ground, with a small turn radius relative to its size and plenty of maneuverability that allows it to forgo towing. Pushback on the other hand is still required as this aircraft does not come with thrust reversers… except it does and they have just been glued shut. Certainly disappointing, but given the braking performance we later discovered, was somewhat understandable.

With ground testing out of the way the pilots were eager to get this aircraft airborne. Takeoff was uneventful save for some initial pull to either side of the runway. While this would have been difficult to adjust with the larger nose gear it was merely a mild inconvenience with the steering enabled. Our model was able to lift off at under 85m/s, which while higher than we’d like to see, is still reasonable. The long distance required for takeoff relegates the Gigant to medium and large airports, but given its capacity and cabin layout that was to be expected regardless. We found the tail gear to be necessary in the prevention of tail strikes, a nice addition to have. In the air the aircraft was slow and steady, much like the oceanliner alluded to earlier. Roll and yaw control were adequate, and there was plenty of pitch authority to be had. The latter is probably there to combat the torque induced by the thrust of the low slung engines, but it was a welcome addition nonetheless.

We completed both a standard landing and a water landing without any issues. The outboard gear and pods helped in both regards, adding stability in either situation. Not only are they effective at preventing engine strikes, they also make the aircraft very stable on the water. While this aircraft does not have thrust reversers, they are likely unnecessary in the vast majority of situations given the impressively powerful brakes. Safety is paramount for any high capacity, high value aircraft and the Gigant does not disappoint in this regard. Not only can it sustain flight with an entire side’s worth of engines out, it is still stable down to a single outboard engine, though do not expect to maintain airspeed or altitude with more than half the engines gone.

Throughout flight testing our pilots could find little to complain about. The only matter that they repeatedly talked about was the lack of incidence on the wings, forcing the aircraft to adopt a rather significant nose-up attitude during cruise. That and the lack of dihedral on the wings meant that while stability was good, it could be better. Not that passengers would notice. The plush first class cabins are in excellent taste and supreme in comfort, though it does get somewhat noisy in the lower front cabin due to its proximity to the inboard engines. The forward and aft bulkheads provide plenty of room for drinks and meals, a nice touch given the sky-high price of the Gigant.

The Verdict:

In terms of performance, the Gigant performs well enough. With a usable range of 3700km at a decent airspeed passengers are sure to arrive at their destinations refreshed and happy. However, this aircraft was clearly intended for luxury, and it has a price tag to match. At over 750 million funds and carrying 480 passengers in an all first class configuration, we’re having trouble envisioning any standard route that can take advantage of such a cabin layout. While maintenance costs won’t be outlandish with the conventional engine layout and relative simplicity of the aircraft, something must be said about the dated philosophy behind the design. With a three or two class layout, we expect this model to excel at high demand transoceanic or transcontinental routes, but the price-tag might not make the Gigant that currently stands financially viable. We’d like to lease a pair as flagships to test their viability within our fleets, or until a better option comes around, but until then, we’re sure we can convince some rich guy somewhere to host a party in the air every now and then.

Edited by NightshineRecorralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: @l0kki 's PTSLRA

another happy landing (taken from a photo from the second test flight)

screenshot151.png

 

(sorry for the late review, should have done this earlier)

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:37 935 000
  • Fuel:  3250 kallons
  • Cruising speed: 240 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 6.5 KM
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.43 kal/s
  • Passengers Carried:  24 as tested
  • Range:  ~4300km

 

The test pilots at the KSC were quite confused at the placement of the cabins, above the cockpit, because how in the world would the kerbals get up there? (and why are the engines so damn high up??) nevertheless, we managed to squeeze into the cabins, which were comfortable after the squeezening. Though i have to say, the angle that the plane sits on the aircraft is quite, strange. takeoff speed was ~50 M/S as stated,  and because our test pilot was slightly incompetent, we had to raise the STOL engine manually.

takeoff was smooth, the elevators are quite powerful with lifting force, but roll, that is the difficult thing to make not bash the heads of out kerbal testers against the roof, which proves to be difficult. in the midst of flight, a bird managed to flap its way into the right engine, but luckily, due to the engine placement, the plane didn't yaw as hard as the pilot thought it would, so the pilot thought he was seeing things (and hearing). when we descended to ~5 KM up, we saw our first problem, the plane wanted to roll even more now then ever, thought it was controllable.

we glided down to the abandoned runway, and started standard emergency landing protocol, that's when the second catastrophe happened, the plane ballooned, and bounced when we tried to land, the aerobrakes were out and the reverse thrust was active, the plane started to yaw heavily to the left side and it went to the hills, where it bumped into the ground and destroyed the FTAE engine, everything else was fine, however, the plane was past the end of the runway, which was probably due to the panic form the pilot and the short length of the abandoned runway. More testing went on, we even 'landed' it on an aircraft carrier, the water landing went extremely smoothly, no damage to anything,  though it could only reach 20 M/S in the water and could not take off. 

After the disastrous first test, we decided to test the bird again, without the incompetent pilot, the test went smoothly, the pilot managed not to bash the heads of the kerbals inwards, we were testing out gliding, when we realized we were too low to the ground, there was an extremely convenient aircraft carrier nearby, and we somehow managed to contact it and asked them if we could land, we were so polite, they let us land. we did standard protocol,  but the short runway of 210 M proved to be too short, and we almost tipped off the edge, were it not for the fact that the engines were mounted about the wing, we would have crashed into the water. thank you for adding those airbrakes

 

The Verdict:

The PTSLRA is an alright airliner for what it is, though proving to be harder to maintain due to the tail-dragging gear and the high mounted engines,  its increased survivability (see back to the second test), proves to be an amazing feature, being able to 'land' on aircraft carriers, is a great feature if that countries military doesn't mind passenger planes landing on their carriers. The bottom mounted engine is a nice speed boost, but when landing, it can be destroyed really easily (see back to the first test). Though head bashing is a problem for inexperienced pilots, it can be controlled, though some argued, democracy proved to work, expect us to buy 6.

Edited by MR_somebody
im dumb and thought 38 million was pricey, and missed some v important stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glorious Class 47 Ekranoplan Created by the glorious Soviet military (not to worry, plane is demilitarized)

screenshot159.png

 Each of these Perfect soviet Ekranoplans costs only 139 684 000 funds! if you are worried about plane, you should not worry, it can also be classified as flying boat, with a range of ~500 KM (we are not mentioning the deviatins in the kilometres, or how the glorious plane dips nose down later in flight, are we?). Ekranoplan flies at 166 M/S with a fuel consumption of Zero decimal Seven-Three kallons per second, and holds 2960 kallons of fuel. Each ekranoplan holds 72 of the greatest passengers you will ever fly with (if they are interrupted, just call the captain, he will deal with noise), therefore, it is low capacity plane. Though plane can only hold passengers, you can modify it to your own whim if you want cargo, it is dangerous if you do. plane takes off at ~80 Metres per second. you can also land in water and take off at 90 Metres a second. You get one here: https://kerbalx.com/MR_somebody/Class-47-Ekranoplan

 

(make sure you fly beautiful plane at 5-20 Metres, we have had horrible crash at above that levels)

 

Action groupings:

1 toggles engines on and off

2 toggles thrust reverse, though you wont need

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MR_somebody said:

we glided down to the abandoned runway, and started standard emergency landing protocol, that's when the second catastrophe happened, the plane ballooned, and bounced when we tried to land,

Ah this is my fault for providing lacking flight instructions. To prevent bouncing on landing you should land at under 100m/s, 80m/s is preferable without the FTAE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: [@rutnam's A917-A Skycutter]    Long Haul, Low Capacity

 tmqpBej.png

(Pictured: The A917-A in flight)

Figures as Tested:

  • Price::funds:192 600 000
  • Fuel:  520 kal LF, 640 kal Ox
  • Cruising speed: 150 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 7000 m
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.02 kal/s
  • Range: ~3800 km

Review Notes:

When we saw the plane, the thing that caught the attention of the entire review board was the absolute size of the propellers. In fact, they were twice as high as the cabin and fuselage, coming in at 5.3m diameter. Not to mention, there were 2 pairs of contras. We were looking forward to feeling the power they would provide, although our maintenance team was quite worried at maintaining those 4 propellers.

What was also quite strange was the centreline main gear, which was unusual for a plane of this size. We figured that this would be unnecessary and would hinder rotation speed, so we tried to retract it. It was at this moment that we learnt what this was for, as the plane started to tip back. As it would turn out, the centre of mass was a tad far back, and we were unable to figure out why.

What we were not looking forward to (because we were looking up) was the height of the plane. To accommodate the massive propeller assembly, the plane sat quite high off the ground, which would pose problems for boarding at small or regional airports and also hinder easy maintenance.

Finally, we relinquished control to our test pilots to take it out for a spin. (Note the wording used). They taxied it out of the hanger and turned it onto the runway. Except it didn't turn, because there was no steerable gear. We were in a bit of bother, but one of our test pilots had the brilliant idea of throttling up the right engine to turn it left. Thankfully, this worked out, at the cost of a little convenience. We really would like to see a steerable gear though.

Finally, it was time to takeoff. As was expected, the plane jolted forward as the throttles were advanced forward. It rotated at 55m/s and took off in 600m, which was actually 200m longer than stated.

Regarding its controls, it was pretty alright on all 3 axes, although a bit slow. We also noticed that the rudder's deflection angle was rather small, however this proved to not be a significant problem, and the plane was able to sideslip 15 degrees. What caught all of our attention was the noise created by the propellers. It has to be the loudest propeller plane we've heard.

Climb and cruise was also pretty standard, although admittedly we were unsure if the plane would be able to reach its cruising speed of 150m/s, due to the seemingly sensitive nature of the propellers. However, it was able to without much difficulty. 

Apropos to landing, the plane touched down at 70m/s and was able to stop in 300m, which is relatively good. We figure it can be made shorter by incorporating more powerful brakes; however this isn't a very big problem. What is a problem is that the props are relatively close to the ground, which means that a hard landing could scrape the propellers.

In emergency simulations, our pilots commented that it was able to ditch easily without major damage.

However, in the single-engine failure test, it was found that the plane was unable to stay stable with one engine at full throttle. The power that the contras provide overpowers the small rudder deflection. In fact, at slower speeds, the plane was almost put into a flat spin, had it not been for the pilots feeling this and immediately aborting the test. (Refer to above wording used)

In the dual-engine failure test, the natural unpowered state of the engine meant that the propellers were actually decelerating the plane more. Our pilots also had some difficulty feathering the propellers for gliding. We recommend adding a system which automatically feathers the props in an engine-out situation.

The Verdict:

It's a nice-looking plane. However, there are some issues with the plane, the major ones being that it's quite high, leading to harder boarding and maintenance. Also, the lack of steerable gear means that it is not very manoeuvrable on the ground.

Furthermore, while it does have a long range, it has quite a small capacity for its relatively high cost.

TKA will buy 3 with a potential 2 more if we can successfully incorporate this into our low-density long-haul routes if the major problems are fixed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Maxorin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fleetwings presents: Fleetwings SFB "Mercury"

sMLcUgB.png

Privet Comrade! We would like to present to you our small flying boat of 24 passengers.

By combining canard design and sleek airframe in no way derived from secret jet bomber, we create aircraft with exceptional performance.

Canard mean is capable of takeoff 70m/s on land or 60m/s on water. Landing is just glide with no engine until aircraft reaches water, be gentle.

Lack of horizontal stabiliser mean pitch instability is not so good if you are manhandling of the controls, but for competent russki pilot is no trouble.

Range is approximately 400/0.06*100/1000 = 666.6km, purely coincidence and in no way reflecting of pitch characteristics. Test conducted at 7000m altitude, where engine begins to lose power.

Price is approximately 20,186,000:funds: per aircraft. If you are interested for purchase please contact foreign trade minister below:

https://kerbalx.com/life_on_venus/Fleetwings-SFB-Mercury

 

Edited by life_on_venus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

THE ROYAL C6-168-S “TRIAD” JUMBO JET

OWwAVQP.png

Royal has jumped onto the airliner scene with its new jumbo jet: the C6-168-S “Triad.” Royal’s debut is safe, cheap, efficient, and comfortable, and we are sure it will fit your every need.

The Triad runs off of two J-33 Wheesley turbofans and two J-90 Goliath turbofans. These produce excellent thrust allowing all 63 tons of plane to take off at around 70 meters per second. The cruising altitude of the Triad sits at roughly four kilometers, although it can be adjusted based on your speed preferences. At this altitude, the plane cruses at 350 meters per second at an angle of attack of less than five degrees. While gliding, the plane can pass 400 meters per second. The plane can go 15050 kilometers without refueling.

All of these features, of course, come with the highest level of comfort. The Triad is ideal for a mostly business class plane with its double-wide top and great view. At the bottom, the view is slightly obstructed by the wings, but otherwise is the same. We at Royal have taken special care to provide buffer between the engines and the cabin; the ride is seamless. In addition, the Triad has a nose-mounted aerial providing wi-fi to the entire plane.

Piloting the Triad is a joy. The large landing gear, lowered take off and landing cockpit, and great canopy view allow for ease of piloting. 

Finally, the price is fair at only :funds:64,016,000. We’ve saved price by reducing extraneous cabin space, also allowing for ease of air filter usage.

We hope you consider Royal for your next jumbo jet purchase.

STATS:

Name: Royal C6-168-S “Triad”

Category: Supersonic long-haul medium capacity jet

Capacity: 170 (168 passengers, pilot and co-pilot)

Fuel capacity: 5160 kallons fully loaded, although the test plane has been fueled for the smoothest flight

Price: 64,016,000 Funds

Cruising altitude: 3.5-4 kilometers

Cruising speed: 320-350 meters per second

Range: 15050 kilometers

Download link: https://kerbalx.com/KingDomino/C6-168-S-Triad

Edited by KingDominoIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, somepersondunno said:

how do I calculate range?

Take the amount of fuel you have, divide it by the fuel consumption rate. Multiply by speed. Divide by 1000 to get range in km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, somepersondunno said:

Are fuel cells allowed? I'm not sure if they violate the non rocket engine rule.

fuel cells are allowed - most of our propeller submissions so far rely on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Spartan Industries SRJ-10SP Long Range Small Regional Jet

http://WiBSOUz.jpg

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/espartanlast/SRJ-10SP

  • Price: 38.647.000
  • Fuel: 2300
  • Cruising speed: 280 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000 m 
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.18kal/s
  • Range: 3577 km
  • PAX Capacity: 40
  • Flaps AG1

We are proud to present the new Super Regional Jet 10 Special Performance, equipped with the new short field performance upgrade that reduce the takeoff run, it also come equipped with the ground level baggage hold, that allow ground handling without any assistance, capable of both long range and short range with unbelievable efficiency, it is called to be the airline workhorse for many years

Flaps must be used for takeoff and landing

Spartan Industries SRJ-15SP Long Range Small Regional Jet

http://G53iWs6.jpg

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/espartanlast/SRJ-15SP

  • Price: 41.711.000
  • Fuel: 2700
  • Cruising speed: 280 m/s
  • Cruising altitude: 4000 m 
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.23kal/s
  • Range: 3286 km
  • PAX Capacity: 60
  • Flaps: AG1

The same but with more seats

 

Flaps must be used for takeoff and landing

Edited by espartanlast1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Test Pilot Review: @mrdanger2007's Model 308 'Altoliner' by Kerlington (Short Haul, Low Capacity)

20200531230001_1.jpg

Figures as Tested:

  • Price: :funds:82,682,000
  • Fuel: 360 LF, 440 Ox
  • Cruising speed: 195m/s 
  • Cruising altitude: 2800 - 3000
  • Fuel burn rate: 0.08k/s
  • Passengers Carried: 40
  • Range:  1170km

Review Notes:

"Woah, are those radial engines? I thought they stopped using those like, fifty years ago" - One of our test pilots.

Unfortunately, one of our partnered companies - Phantom Aerospace, had decided to cancel their judging contracts and as such, they were delivered to us at UCA (Uncle Carlos Aerospace).

Our first thoughts on the Altoliner were that this aircraft had been in storage for so long because of how long our judging queue was - fortunately, upon closer inspection, the aircraft was indeed new and the engines were electric and only stylized as radials. According to the company, the 1950s aesthetic was deliberate and was supposed to "illicit memories of the golden age of aviation in everyone who looks at it.". They definitely weren't wrong. Aside from looking like it was designed fifty years ago, the aircraft had a very modern propulsion system composed of electric motors and fuel cells generating electricity. The rest of the aircraft remained fairly conventional with the exception of the triple tail and smaller-than-average wings. The tried-and-tested tricycle landing gear made taxiing the Altoliner a breeze, though the ground clearance of the propellers was found to be a little bit too low. The cockpit design also allowed for extremely good pilot visibility, though, the size of the windows also raised some structural safety concerns in the event of a crash.

Finally, after the pre-flight checks were over, our pilots were allowed to fly the aircraft.

The Altoliner required a surprisingly high speed of roughly 74m/s to takeoff, but the Altoliner's extremely powerful engines allowed for a short takeoff run. The aircraft was sluggish to maneuver, wasn't as stable as expected and had a large turning radius. The aircraft naturally wanted to pitch down and pilots reported having to 'fight' the aircraft at low-medium speeds. The Altoliner also tended to roll slightly to the left when pitching up for some reason. Despite this, pilots appreciated the control of propeller pitch being bound to throttle. This made things a lot easier for pilots as they did not have to worry about adjusting propeller pitch while flying - unlike some other propeller driven aircraft. Acceleration at all speeds was also good. The Altoliner only able to reach the advertised 200m/s cruise speed when slightly losing altitude and on average, the aircraft had a cruise speed of roughly 195m/s. Range was marginally better than what was advertised at 1170km instead of 1094. Passenger comfort was deemed average - if a bit noisy due to the proximity of a few huge propellers next to the cabin. The aircraft had a fairly high stall of roughly 80-90m/s and had poor gliding ability which, made landing difficult. Additionally, the front landing gear was also a bit flimsy occasionally collapsing or popping tires on landing.

In emergencies, the aircraft performed poorly in ditch tests. Despite being able to float, the high speed required to land and tendency to pitch-down made trying to land softly difficult. The aircraft could handle up to two engine failures and still be able to takeoff and maintain flight. However, if the two engines that failed were on one side, takeoff was near-impossible and maintaining flight required full rudder. Landing with any number of engines failed was significantly more difficult as the aircraft had far less power to be able to land at such high speeds

With a fuel consumption of 0.08k/s, it was good compared to jetliners but not compared to other propeller aircraft of its class. In comparison, both the similarly sized JA-42 and K-400 had a fuel consumption of only 0.02k/s. Having four engines opposed to only two also made maintenance slightly more expensive.

The Verdict:

Whilst the cost of buying the aircraft was relatively low, cost long-term in terms of maintenance proved to be a concern. The aircraft also had some safety issues regarding landing gear design, high takeoff/landing speeds and difficulty to fly. 

We appreciate the attention to detail with aesthetics, though, in the aircraft's current state, competing designs in the same class like the JA-42 and K-400 prove to be much better at their jobs than the Altoliner.

Unless some issues are fixed, we advise TKA to not order any for regular passenger service. However, we encourage TKA to purchase at least one to be used jointly with the Kerbal Air Museum for accurate historical flights. 

Edited by HolidayTheLeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New from Antech Industries, a low capacity short haul VTOL airliner for handling trips to some of the most remote airfields on kerbin!
the Antech S.126 makes use of electric motors and fuel cells to provide passengers the quietest and most comfortable flight at the most economic price. with a range of 7,900 kilometers on a full tank, carrying only 144 units of fuel, the S.126 can turn even the most unprofitable small town routes into a success!

Range: 7,900 kilometers
Cruising Speed: 110 m/s
Cruising Altitude: 3000m
Cost: $44,513,000
Fuel Capacity: 144 units
Fuel Burn: .02 units per second
screenshot80.png

screenshot78.png

screenshot77.png

screenshot76.png

At a unit cost of $44,513,000, the S.126 is a more than affordable option for all kinds of dirty work that most other aircraft can't handle!
pick one up today at: https://kerbalx.com/antimatterkill/Antech-S126

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just off the Kestrel Aerospace slipway comes the "Exmouth" Class flying boat! 

6fFa5V0.png

Four turbine engines propel the Exmouth class to a leisurely 125m/s cruising speed at an altitude of 4800 metres. The high-mounted, open cockpit gives pilots great visibility while taxiing, and the luxurious Mk3 cabins accommodate 48 passengers in true old-timey "sleeper" style - ready for cruising down river deltas and hopping between tropical island paradises. Engineers will be happy to note that there is easy roof access on top of the cabins, allowing engines to be serviced from atop the wing structure, and pilots will love the docile but maneuverable air and water handling, with the option to shut down left or right engines for more precise water taxiing. 

A4n7Ewz.jpg

The Exmouth class is capable of very short landings on water, provided a shallow landing angle and good speed management are employed. It's recommended that pilots touch down at 60m/s or less, with the hull running as parallel as possible to the water.  In case of emergency, or exceptional circumstances, there is the option to land on terra firma - A conventional tricycle landing gear is provided. Recommended speed for ground landings is, as before, 60m/s or less. The procedure for water takeoffs is to activate the flaps, using Action Group 3, and accelerate the vessel to 38m/s. Then, gently pull back and the 'boat should start to gently ease out of the water. Once completely airborne, more speed can be applied as necessary. 

The range of the Exmouth class is estimated using the provided formula to be around 1050 kilometres, but has been somewhat greater in real-world testing, sometimes reaching as much as 1300 kilometres. Your mileage may vary!

Technical Data:

Spoiler

TECHNICAL DATA: 

Stall Speed: 40m/s 

Cruise Speed: 125m/s

Landing Speed: 60m/s or less

Cruise Altitude: 4800 metres

Fuel Capacity: 2925 LF default maximum, this is the amount with which testing was conducted

Fuel Burn at Cruise: 0.35LF/sec

Passenger Capacity: 48 pax

Cost: :funds:136,262,000

For luxury, style, and go-anywhere class, there's only one option. Choose the high seas. Choose Kestrel flying boats. More at http://kerbalx.com/crafts/60979.

8vHWNzV.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.